The post at the top of the thread was about "AI". The following posts were about AI. Don't be blinded by the current hype into thinking that;s the whole picture. Just because other developments get less press doesn't mean they aren't happening and aren't important. In the field of biochem, most AI is *related* to LLMs, but is significantly different.

LLMs are not equivalent to AIs, they are a subset. Don't take LLMs as a complete model of the capabilities of AIs.

"HA-HA"

How would an LLM accurately determine which cases were "easy"? They don't reason, you know. What they do is useful and interesting, but it's essentially channeling: what is in its giant language model is the raw material, and the prompt is what starts the channeling. Because its dataset is so large, the channeling can be remarkably accurate, as long as the answer is already in some sense known and represented in the dataset.

But if it's not, then the answer is just going to be wrong. And even if it is, whether the answer comes out as something useful is chancy, because what it's doing is not synthesis—it's prediction based on a dataset. This can look a lot like synthesis, but it's really not.

I was hoping for football fields, but no luck. :(

Yes. I went to check out buying an Apple recently, after an appointment with my ophthalmologist. I wanted a computer that would run reasonably with voice control, as the ads suggested was possible. I decided not to, or at least to wait another year.

Now I have no idea how many people are affected this way, but that is a sign that the deficiencies have caused at least *some* damage to Apple.

The AI to develop drugs is a fantasy, because the data is too corrupt. There already exist AIs that aid in suggesting possibilities, and they will improve, but one that would do the development cycle would require cleaner data (or better robots).

What I expect from a drug approvement process is effectiveness at first: to really know about the risk profile, the potential benefits and the drawbacks of a given drug in certain medical circumstances. Efficiency is very far on the backburner here.

I don't know where this notion that Bluesky is an echo chamber comes from.

Example: Go into a pro-AI thread from a popular user right as it's posted and write "AI is a con. It's blatant planet-destroying theft from actual creative people to create a stochastic parrot that bullshits what you want to hear. You're watching a ventriloquist doll and believing that it's actually alive."

Then go into an anti-AI thread from a popular user right as it's posted and write "AI is clearly Fair Use under the Google Books standard. And while one can debate what the word "thinks" means, AI isn't "statistics", but rather, applies complex chains of fuzzy logic to solve problems. The creative works it creates are truly its own."

In both cases, watch the fireworks explode.

Do the same thing on, say, whether to support Ukraine, on a NAFO account vs. a tankie account. Or whether China is good or bad. Or Israel vs. Palestine. On and on and on. In the vast majority of topics, all common sides are pretty well represented. It's just a handful of specific topics that I think certain right wingers are talking about when they complain about Bluesky underrepresenting one side (racism, sexism, etc).

They need to put the word "decline" in sarcasm quotation marks.

Huh? Takei is quite popular on Bluesky.

Also, this whole article is nonsense. Basically - like all sites - every time there is an event that triggers lots of signups, you get a mix of people who don't stick around, and people who do. So you get a curve that - without further events - steadily tapers down to something like 1/2 to 1/3rd of its peak. Except that you keep getting further events. When you plot out the long-term trends of Bluesky's userbase, they've been very much upwards, but it's come in the form of many individual spikes, each of which is followed by a decline to 1/2 to 1/3rd of the spike's peak (if allowed to run for long enough since the last spike). The most recent spike is IMHO notable for how little decline there's been since then.

I see basically zero migration from long-time users back to Twitter.

Because twisting the facts to fit that narrative generates clicks.

Yet, here you are, posting on the Internet using technology created by Big Tech.

But a large part of why X Window is the way it is, is that it was designed when computers were EXPECTED to have a lot less memory and disk space. It's always easier to expand something than to trim it back.

PS: For larger payloads, Starship plans refueling in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This means at least ten single launches of rockets to get all the fuel up there. It will show if that is indeed cheaper than Ariane and similar launch systems.

No. Starship is a LEO and SSO transport ship. At maximum, it will transport 21 tonnes to a geostationary orbit. It is a two stage system. It can't reach L2. It can't even reach the Moon in the current design, because it is not able to accelerate to the necessary 11.2 km per second. For that, you would need a third stage, and on average, the third stage has to be about 10 times the size of the second stage.